After I publish a piece, the writing doesn’t stop. I think about what I wrote for a few days. Often, new thoughts come into my head. My latest piece on Medium, “Why I No Longer Refer to White People,” is no exception. These words are my postscript.
The Comments:
First, I read all the comments on every post. But I do not respond to comments on Medium because too many people don’t post comments or questions in good faith on Medium. I’m happy to respond to comments here.
I noticed on this latest post several comments about a Catch22. These include comments like “we don’t want to be white, but then we get in trouble if we say we aren’t white.” Or the “what do I call myself if I don’t call myself white.”
I may write more about this in the future, but those are the dilemmas that come when justice is delayed and denied. I think whites should have a posture that says, “I am, but I’m not, and I don’t want to be” on white identity. Remember this is a political category. The “I am, but I’m not, and I don’t want to be” that I’m talking about probably isn’t that different from how I feel about being in the United States.
When antiracist justice happens in full, I believe many of those questions and issues will resolve. But because we are in a place where we don’t have justice, it’s awkward and unclear. Again, that’s one small consequence when there’s no justice. White racism is killing people. The focus should be on antiracist justice.
The Photo:
As you can see from the post, the photo comes from Pexel. When I selected the photo, I knew nothing about it. A reader mentioned in the comments that the photo is from Mountclair State University. So, I did some digging on that lead. The photo in my post is of a public art project called “Street Crossing” by George Segal. The picture makes its own statement about my post. I invite you to look at it and make your own statements about white identity.
What I’d Change in the Text:
I look at the text as set in stone now, especially because Medium featured the post. I think the post wanders too much initially because I usually have my point in the first paragraph. So, I would make my point in the first paragraph.
I would also take out this sentence: “Unfortunately, I don’t get the sense that enough people struggle with the words “white people.”
That’s not true. I wasn’t thinking about social media censorship and all the workarounds for “white people” that exist. I also wasn’t thinking that some whites don’t like being called “white people.” But some whites don’t want to be called “white people.” I didn’t think that sentence enough. Plenty of people struggle with “white people,” including whites.
I’m also not sure about this sentence: “And with its claim to purity and its denial of African ancestry, white identity is not only inhumane, but it is also inhuman.”
That sentence is the core of the piece. But maybe nonhuman or unhuman are better choices instead of inhuman. What do you think?
For me, the logic behind the post is more significant than the semantics. White identity is not what it claims to be. White identity is not a human quality. Some of you may be familiar with the racist phrase “no humans involved.” “No humans involved” is not what I mean. No humanity involved is what I mean.
This piece builds on my essay, “White Identity Is Incompatible with Democracy,” and says white identity is incompatible with humanity.
More from Baldwin:
“Color is not a human or personal reality; it is a political reality.” - The Fire Next Time
“It is a terrible paradox, but those who believed that they could control and define Black people divested themselves of the power to control and define themselves.” - On Being White and Other Lies.
“no community can be established on so genocidal a lie.” - On Being White and Other Lies
More on Baldwin:
When Baldwin talks about white as a moral choice and people who think they are white, he exposes the ideological component to white identity. He reveals white identity as an ideology. Is “white” the Big Lie?
What Else:
Removing the “people” from “white people” helps me read “Whiteness as Property” by Cheryl Harris in a new way.
Recently, I read a dissertation by Marc Boswell, “God in Whiteface,” and he quotes Thomas Merton, who says whites made themselves into a god.
Think about it: Establishing and imposing a racist world order for and on all of humanity and then claiming to have created the modern world are godlike behaviors and thoughts. Humanity-ordering and world-making are godlike activities. To make what you consider god and angels look like you is godlike behavior and thought.
White identity placed itself atop of humanity and put itself outside of humanity, beyond humanity. White identity is a radicalized and radicalizing identity because it claims to not have a mixture of ancestry, especially African ancestry, and it forces others to do the same.
I think that’s all I got. What do you think? Let me know in the comments.
Hi Sam! I'm so impressed with what you're doing on Substack. Grateful because I learn so much from you and always impressed because you know how to speak truth firmly and intelligently without sugarcoating things. Looking forward to following this journey and growing as I learn.
Just read your article on Medium and your post script. I now subscribed because I really like your writing.
In regards to Jen Psaki, she’s just a mouthpiece for the administration and she doesn’t have all the answers all the time. I think she’s tip toeing because she knows she’s speaking for the entire admin and not because she doesn’t want to call a spade a spade. Historically there’s always been false equivalencies made and the Trump admin did an exemplary job of this since since the USSR.
The problem I see is if this admin goes the full length of calling domestic terrorism or terrorists as “white”, which we all would like, the division will continue. Perhaps, we should go the distance and call them out but then what? They get exposed more, yep great. More come out of the woodwork, excellent. We see them and therefore can shame them publicly, GREAT! But they won’t care. They won’t understand nor care if they’re publicly shamed. So what then? Do we arrest them for being clearly racist, white and in philosophical support of white terrorists? That would tread on an entirely different political system.
The vast majority of white racists didn’t storm the capitol. They still live among us. So the question is how do we stamp out white(ism) and/or white terrorism?
Secondly, when you write about “whites” are we talking about Anglo-Saxons and/or Germanic and/or Russian etc? I myself am mixed race and have friends that are as well, and some by appearance might be misclassified as white but when asked they’ll say they’re Spanish or Greek or Sicilian. It’s those formulaic boxes of Caucasian, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc that unfortunately many Americans have to tick where in many countries outside of the US we don’t have to.